First of all, I owe an apology to American Models for flaming their combine in
my intemperate, late-night e-mail. I was unaware of the CNJ prototype and it,
and the subsequent posting from Andrew Malette, were a revelation. I
appreciate the photo and information on the combines provided in response to my
e-mail. I always want to learn.
To the folks at American Models, I apologize and also give you thanks for what
you have done for S Scale. Please accept the gaff in my message as the product
of my metric IQ (if you double it and add thirty, you get room temperature). I
also appreciate that you have done some painstaking work to bring to us basic
products of high quality and fidelity, as affordable as can be in such a
limited market. I would beseech you, however, to consider redesign or
upgrading your older products to take advantage of current business
opportunities and model railroad technology. For those of us who are inept
enough to really NEED your cars in r-t-r or simple kit form, the prospect of
matching paint and relettering is daunting. I meant what I said in my message
-- you have many products I would like to run on my little layout, but I feel I
need a higher standard of detail if for no other reason than to match the
products of your competitors.
[That reminds me -- I've got a small bucket-full of discarded Showcase Line
highrail wheelsets. Any takers?]
The fact is -- YOU, american Models brought me into S Scale. I was an American
Flyer kid, but that equipment was long gone by the time I looked at scale model
railroading in the late 1960s as a teenager. I really wanted to go into S
Scale at that time, but I am the prototype of the old Thumbs cartoon in the
NMRA Bulletin, so realized I would have to go the easy HO route. Several years
later, when I was working, though not any more skillful, I converted to O
Scale. I loved the "feel" of the operation of the much heavier trains. Then
along came American Models and their first plastic box car and plug-door reefer
kits, and that was all I needed -- I got rid of my O scale as fast as I could.
Thank you for giving me that opportunity.
Getting back to the combines, I presume the CNJ car is for suburban service,
judging by its look. I am interested to know if it was a series or a one-off.
Was it a rebuild, as with the CN cars mentioned by Andrew Malette? Either
with the CNJ or the CN cars, does anyone know if they actually loaded
passengers through the baggage-end vestibule? I am making the broad assumption
that if so, the baggage section was not used for valuable goods such as express
shipments that could suddenly disappear. I would also think the insurers would
be rather concerned about passenger liability -- baggage sections, especially
after a few years of service, usually do not have the best flooring.
Having said that, I also recognize there is a propensity for us, both railfans
and model railroaders, to like the oddball pieces of equipment. They certainly
add a bit of colour, figuratively, to that assembly line of cars that is the
typical main line train. It is a matter of -- I'll use the word "concern" --
to me that the enthusiastic amateurs who run railroad museums [I have been one]
tend to collect the oddballs and overlook what is really historically valuable.
That 1937 AAR boxcar in almost pristine condition (or at least restorable to
such) gets scrapped while the museum collects one more business car. What
impressions will this leave in the future of what classic era railroading
looked like? I know this seems like a small point, especially when model
railroading is very much a matter of personal choice -- AND SHOULD BE. And I
definitely write as someone interested primarily in railroad history
(financial, technical, political, social) and operations. I admit I am a model
railroader second. (And if you saw the quality of my modelling you see that is
obvious.)
My personal aesthetic choice is that I define a "good" model railroad by how
well it represents the flavour of its era, and how well it reproduces what
really might have been, visually and in its operations. That actually leaves
plenty of leeway, but the essential foundation of any scene has to be what is
"typical." I expect that even a freelance design will adhere to the basics of
AAR interchange rules and the realities of engineering and fabrication. Is
that freelance item something that looks like it really could have been
designed by an engineer, or architect, or talented mechanic? Therefore, when I
look to spend my hard-earned bucks -- like all of you, I have dozens of other
demands for those funds -- I want something that represents 99% of what
railroading looked like in my chosen era. To some extent, then, I still stand
by my opinion. For mass production, especially if it is going to be applied
generically to several railroads, I expect the product to be typical. To my
way of thinking -- remember my metric IQ -- the oddball cars are more
appropriate for brass projects or that scratch-/kitbashing project.
I have been a student and fan of railroads since I was a babe in arms, waving
at the few steam locomotives that made their last stand out of Mimico Yard in
Toronto in the late 1950s. [We all remember where we were when we heard the
news of 9/11, or of the Kennedy assassination. I remember, just as vividly,
where I was -- and how much I cried -- when I was told all the steam engines
are going to be scrapped.] I guess that makes me an oldtimer. I consider
myself lucky to have seen the end of the humanistic age of railroading. I
consider myself lucky to have been able to get back to S Scale, thanks to AM
and all the rest of you manufacturers.
Thanks, friends.
regards ... pqr
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/S-Scale/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
